Players, GMs, and "My character"...

[the Jester]

I'd go as far as saying that accusing the player that is uncomfortable being involved against their will in those particular elements smacks of blaming the victim. .... Some lines you don't cross without the other player's consent. That is part of the RPGing social contract in our neck of the woods at least.

Right. The lines where you dictate what their pc feels, thinks, says or does.

Just as they shouldn't try to dictate what your pc feels, thinks, says or does.

 

[billd91]

I'd go as far as saying that accusing the player that is uncomfortable being involved against their will in those particular elements smacks of blaming the victim. I'd always thought that was the standard for the general playing populace.

Some lines you don't cross without the other player's consent. That is part of the RPGing social contract in our neck of the woods at least.

Indeed. Furthermore, I think the situation can be highly contextual. It may be acceptible for Lanefan to poke the bear when playing with good friends and one gets a bit squeamish about another PC having a crush on him. Friends can often get away with that sort of behavior without hard feelings. With other player dynamics, that may not be the case. It's important to know your audience.

It's also important to realize that, in many case, we don't really know where all of those lines are at the start. So set your expectations a bit conservatively until you find where those lines are. Don't poke the bear until you know the player will accept a bit of ribbing gracefully. And on the flip side, don't throw out uncrossable lines for small things and not without talking about them when the game starts to get uncomfortable. But when faced with something seriously uncomfortable (the number of horror stories I'm sure we've all heard about RPG rape comes to mind), don't hesitate to speak up!

 

[billd91]

But in this specific example, one person's view of fun involves romantically pursuing another character. For some, that isn't a point they are willing to compromise. And maybe the answer is that one of them needs to leave the campaign.

Perhaps. And I can see where the greater need to compromise probably is. If this is a consentual gathering of players, it really is player A who needs to back off. Player B is not consenting to be the target of that sort of attention from another PC. As long as Player B isn't overplaying his uncrossable lines card, Player A shouldn't be allowed to drive B from the game because he won't compromise on his idea of fun. The burden of compromise, assuming nobody is too prickly in general, falls heavier on the one crossing the line without the target's consent.

 

[Mikaze]

Right. The lines where you dictate what their pc feels, thinks, says or does.

Just as they shouldn't try to dictate what your pc feels, thinks, says or does.

I'd suggest the limiters put in place to make sure the game doesn't shoot past the players' comfort levels trumps that absolute freedom.

Hell, as a GM running an evil campaign, I put down limitations that amounted to "Don't turn this into an escalating depravity war. No rape." to make sure it didn't go past my boundries. I also checked the players to find out where their boundries are. We set the limits. And they still have plenty of freedom to work with concerning their characters' feelings, thoughts, words, and actions. None of them hinged on those things we put out of bounds.

Theoretical Player 1 on the other hand...

Indeed. Furthermore, I think the situation can be highly contextual. It may be acceptible for Lanefan to poke the bear when playing with good friends and one gets a bit squeamish about another PC having a crush on him. Friends can often get away with that sort of behavior without hard feelings. With other player dynamics, that may not be the case. It's important to know your audience.

It's also important to realize that, in many case, we don't really know where all of those lines are at the start. So set your expectations a bit conservatively until you find where those lines are. Don't poke the bear until you know the player will accept a bit of ribbing gracefully. And on the flip side, don't throw out uncrossable lines for small things and not without talking about them when the game starts to get uncomfortable. But when faced with something seriously uncomfortable (the number of horror stories I'm sure we've all heard about RPG rape comes to mind), don't hesitate to speak up!

Exactly. The players should find each others comfort levels early in and respect them. If there are triggering issues that players are particularly sensitive to, that should be respected. Those issues may not be something they should be expected to just "get over".

 

[Celebrim]

I'd suggest the limiters put in place to make sure the game doesn't shoot past the players' comfort levels trumps that absolute freedom.

Hell, as a GM running an evil campaign, I put down limitations that amounted to "Don't turn this into an escalating depravity war. No rape." to make sure it didn't go past my boundries. I also checked the players to find out where their boundries are. We set the limits.

I would suggest that limits placed on player freedom set before the game began are inherently different than ones that come up spantaneously in play. In the first case, all players had a chance to evaluate whether this was the game for them, and hopefully there was oppurtunity for player input and comprimise ahead of time. You started out with an agreement, and so when anyone is in violation of that agreement it's understood who is in the wrong. But in the latter case, you are attempting to change 'the rules' of the social contract midstream and asserting that you have absolute authority to do so. But not even the GM has that much authority over the social contract. Not even the GM can dictate to the other players how they should play. It's not clear who is in the wrong in the general case, and even the specific cases have huge grey areas. So, when these spontaneous objections occur, you don't really have any choice but to work them out are stop playing.

Exactly. The players should find each others comfort levels early in and respect them. If there are triggering issues that players are particularly sensitive to, that should be respected. Those issues may not be something they should be expected to just "get over".

I'm not suggesting that they should just 'get over' their issues. This suggests that 100% of the burden of comprimise lies on the player with 'the issue', and that wouldn't be a comprimise at all. That's just one side giving up and acquiesing. But that's not what I said or advocated. What I said is that 100% of the burden of comprimise doesn't necessarily lie on the guy who has stayed in character and is doing something that makes someone else uncomfortable. What I said is that in the general case, we can't say who is really the victim here.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Right. The lines where you dictate what their pc feels, thinks, says or does.

Just as they shouldn't try to dictate what your pc feels, thinks, says or does.

Does this mean I'm in the right here?

Dear Blondie,

I am a male, playing a female character. She is a lesbian ninja who moonlights as a stripper. Another player in the game, who is female, says my character is one-dimensional, at best, and merely designed to pander to the sexual fantasies of an adolescent male. She also says it's implausible that my ninja would wear only a micro-bikini in combat, and that she would receive more than sufficient income from ninja-ing to support herself, without the need for a second job.

I told her to shut up, cause it's my character! Who is right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

@ Doug:

You are both right. She should kill your character and take her (skimpy) stuff.


RC

 

[MrMyth]

If pc B gets creeped out, the way to handle it is in character. If player B gets creeped out, it's worth talking about the situation; but really, telling player A he has to compromise his pc's emotional attitude is like telling someone that they can't play a halfling because you're uncomfortable with little people, even though you're another player instead of the dm.

When you go to the OOC appeal to a player because you are uncomfortable, there should be an understanding that you are taking an extraordinary step.

Ok, I think I've twigged to one of the two big areas of disagreement here - it looks like some prefer that this sort of thing should always be handled in character.

For me, I think it is great when such a conflict can be handled in character, and it can even offer some really powerful roleplaying opportunities.

But I think there are also times when OOC is not just acceptable, but is even the more appropriate response. When we're dealing with an issue that is genuinely outside of another player's comfort zone, especially when it is intruding on that player's character directly, and they aren't comfortable playing through any ramifications of it - it just isn't an experience they want as part of their game. I think that's the time when the players need to sit down and talk it out.

You note that its ok for a group to discuss and determine what is acceptable before a campaign, but that once it starts, that isn't acceptable. I simply... don't see why. It just doesn't seem reasonable to say that because a player didn't specifically mention they don't want other characters romantically pursuing them, they have to accept it and try to compromise with the player initiating such an uncomfortable situation. If a situation comes up in game which crosses their boundaries, they should have the opportunity to speak out and ask that it stops.

Now, from there you say that Player 1 shouldn't have to curtail their roleplaying experience in order to satisfy the needs of Player 2, and thus both sides should be equally willing to compromise. I'm not sure that is true, either - as some have mentioned, that seems awfully close to victim blaming. Player 2 is in some way 'at fault' for being offended or made uncomfortable by Player 1's behavior. Player 1's roleplaying experience has equal weight as the personal comfort of Player 2.

Which brings us, I think, to the second big point of disagreement - when a boundary line is truly crossed.

Like the Jester notes, some demands might be unreasonable ones. If I'm sensitive about my height, is it fair for me to insist that no one is allowed to play halflings?

On the other hand, Celebrim seems, to me, to be setting the boundary line waaaay past what I think is appropriate: "it requires a lot more unconsensual and extreme case than anything that has been outlined here. An example would be essentially character rape, where one player dominated another player and forced them to engage in sexual acts or other perversions against their will".

I think there are plenty of reasons for someone to be uncomfortable with the game content way before it gets to anything this extreme.

For me, a big part of the line is when another player's roleplaying is involving my character without my consent. Especially when getting into something like romantically pursuing a character which, yeah, can absolutely make people uncomfortable with unwanted attention. And I think someone's discomfort over that sort of behavior does take precedence over how someone else wants to play their character.

Respecting the boundaries of other player's should be one of the agreements of the game. Now, if one of the goals of the game is specifically to push those boundaries, and the DM has said up-front that this is the case - or if, when conflict arises, all the other players say they are fine with that sort of behavior - then the person being discomforted should probably be the one to leave. But in most games, that isn't the case, and I don't think "not having to deal with harassment" is an unreasonable assumption for most people going into a game.

From what I can tell, some of the folks here, like the Jester and Celebrim, seem to be arguing that the roleplaying purity of the game should take precedence over the emotional boundaries and personal comfort levels of the people playing the game. Which might work for your groups, and fair enough.

But for me, the enjoyment and comfort of the players comes way before the 'roleplaying purity' of the game.

 

[MrMyth]

Perhaps. And I can see where the greater need to compromise probably is. If this is a consentual gathering of players, it really is player A who needs to back off. Player B is not consenting to be the target of that sort of attention from another PC. As long as Player B isn't overplaying his uncrossable lines card, Player A shouldn't be allowed to drive B from the game because he won't compromise on his idea of fun. The burden of compromise, assuming nobody is too prickly in general, falls heavier on the one crossing the line without the target's consent.

I'm pretty much in full agreement here. If Player B is objecting to everything others do, then the problem may be with them rather than the others. But if that isn't the case, then when issues do come up, the one who is crossing the line should typically be the person that needs to back down.

 

[billd91]

But I think there are also times when OOC is not just acceptable, but is even the more appropriate response. When we're dealing with an issue that is genuinely outside of another player's comfort zone, especially when it is intruding on that player's character directly, and they aren't comfortable playing through any ramifications of it - it just isn't an experience they want as part of their game. I think that's the time when the players need to sit down and talk it out.

Exactly. When a player is uncomfortable with something, it's an out of character issue. Out of character issues should not be handled with in character methods. That just leads to too much aggressive playing such as killing his PC because the other player parked in your spot.